On Monday, December 28, 2015 at 2:01:09 PM UTC+11, Brent wrote: > > > > On 12/27/2015 5:49 PM, Pierz wrote: > > The argument that the telescope should be built (or not) can only be > > founded on values, not facts. Like JC, I value the progress of > > scientific knowledge highly, and I've never been to Mauna Kea, so I'm > > naturally in favour of building it. But pointing to the factual > > incorrectness of cultural stories surrounding the mountain is > > irrelevant, and reducing the reverence of the native Hawaiians to > > "idiocy" is a typical piece of cultural imperialism. > > That's true that decisions must be based on values as well as facts. > And we have laws and courts codifying our values and democracy to make > the laws. If the Hawiians simply said, "We've heard stories about this > mountain since we were children and we like to think of it as a special > place (even though we've never been there) so you can't put a telescope > on it." they'd be laughed out of court. Why? Because then it would be > patently obvious that just anybody could make up stories to block any > use of any particular piece of land. So they rest their values on the > existence of supernatual beings. They try to support their nostalgic > feelings by facts; except their facts are false. > > I don't think they are imbeciles. I think they are cunning ignoramuses > who have figured out how to game the legal system to maintain their > position of specialness and spiritual superiority. >
Look, I know little about this case and the people involved. Perhaps your statement is based on more than supposition. And like I said, I'm not really on their side in this specific case. But cultural and religious significance is one factor that is taken into consideration in many legal contexts when it comes to development, and in my view that's as it should be. After all, most indigenous peoples have seen their lands, sacred and otherwise, taken over and obliterated by development for the benefit of people with no connection to that land whatsoever. I see no reason why they should fabricate or exaggerate the cultural significance of a site merely in order to be ornery. More likely their concerns are real. You say they've "gamed" the system and imputed nefarious motives, but that is surely for a judge to decide, taking into account the social values which the legal system, as you point out, was put in place to uphold. > Brent > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
